[POLL] PvE, PvP, PvAll - What is the playstyle you want in ED?
- Thread starter Fromhell
- Start date
- Status
So it wouldn't be hard to implement a group option "PvE players only", then? Which only admits players who've disabled PvP ability. Or something. Basically, why should every PvE preferring player be restricted to playing with a small group of friends (or even plain solo) when it would be simple to just put all PvE players into one group and all PvP players into another? i.e. two versions of "All". It's not like the only purpose of other players is to get shot by / shoot at - much of the time you'll want to cooperate in some way. So if you're a PvEer then you'd better hope you've got a bunch of friend who also want to play this way, or you're going solo
I really don't get the resistance to this idea - seems like everyone gets what they want - both PvEers and also PvPers, as they then know everyone they attack is up for that sort of action. Only people who'd be sad are surely the griefers as there wouldn't be anyone in the PvP group who minded getting shot at.
You don't want us fumble fingered unskilled loser PvEers in there with you then, we certainly won't be the "best" to come up against
I understand what you are saying Barns. I thought nearly exactly the same thing when I first started chatting on the forums. I initially hated the idea of splitting the player base between regular and Ironman mode.
I asked myself why I was bothered and the answer was, as The Lone Gunman says - the challenge and the risk. Why do you want players in the game who cannot be physically (in-game) interfaced with? Just to talk to each other or do missions with against NPC targets? People bring their magic with them, both good and bad. Games like this are going to be as close as most of us will ever get to being space cowboys on that Eternal Frontier. It needs to be Dangerous to make it exciting IMO.
Having your own group is a private thing in essence. You can't feel excluded if you exclude yourself from the nut-jobs, hotshots and death merchants. You should be secure with your group setting. If you're not, then why?
@Lone Gunman. The wet crotchy bit is always the best bit!
I asked myself why I was bothered and the answer was, as The Lone Gunman says - the challenge and the risk. Why do you want players in the game who cannot be physically (in-game) interfaced with? Just to talk to each other or do missions with against NPC targets? People bring their magic with them, both good and bad. Games like this are going to be as close as most of us will ever get to being space cowboys on that Eternal Frontier. It needs to be Dangerous to make it exciting IMO.
Having your own group is a private thing in essence. You can't feel excluded if you exclude yourself from the nut-jobs, hotshots and death merchants. You should be secure with your group setting. If you're not, then why?
@Lone Gunman. The wet crotchy bit is always the best bit!
A PvE only option is a regular feature of any MMO stlyle (Yes I know DB has said that ED isn't an MMO, but it features many elements of the genre) game and there are usually plenty of people who want to do that.
The playerbase is already split into 2 big chunks - Regular and Ironman - so why not simply add a third option - PvE? Choice is good (do a degree), even if it's not what you personally would choose!
I'd base the PvE group on the Normal ruleset - I don't see PvE Ironman as an option. Ironman is already quite soft really so to have a PvE version would be a little lame.
The playerbase is already split into 2 big chunks - Regular and Ironman - so why not simply add a third option - PvE? Choice is good (do a degree), even if it's not what you personally would choose!
I'd base the PvE group on the Normal ruleset - I don't see PvE Ironman as an option. Ironman is already quite soft really so to have a PvE version would be a little lame.
Oh I agree, there needs to be danger in the game to make it fun. I just prefer my danger to come from NPCs rather than other players when I play a multiplayer game, so do many others. Marginally less dangerous overall that way? Yes, perhaps, but I fully expect the NPC pirates to be a decent challenge when you're out on the frontier. Plenty of other games have shown that well designed NPC encounters can provide a hard challenge, being "hard" isn't the sole preserve of PvP.
As an aside, "hard" doesn't necessarily mean "needs a big group" either, before we start assuming hard PvE content must mean big group content ala raids in WoW etc. You can design hard solo content too, or content that scales to the size of group you bring. All possible if the will is there.
Having your own group is a private thing in essence. You can't feel excluded if you exclude yourself from the nut-jobs, hotshots and death merchants. You should be secure with your group setting. If you're not, then why?
Not sure I follow. I don't want my own personal little group of friends, I want to play in "All" with random players popping in and out with the feel of a big alive galaxy. I just don't want there to be open PvP in there if I choose to disable it (whether by going PvE server or just toggling a PvP flag, I don't mind). If others choose to PvP, great, more power to them.
<nods>
My initial gut-feel, and reaction after reading the fist page or so of comments in this thread, was that I didn't want any segregation or ability to turn off PvP. It's artificial for one thing and what's the difference to me between an NPC and human attacking, except motive and maybe skill?
After reading some more of the comments, I was reminded of my short-lived forays in to on-line Quake, Battlefield and their ilk, where I would last about 2 seconds after spawning and be mocked by teh 1337. Repeated attempts at trying to improve always ended in ridicule. Would there be rows of little sods camped outside Lave Station waiting for me to emerge in my shiny new Cobra MK3, who would repeatedly blast seven shades out of me?
Having read all the comments, I've come full circle. I trust the game mechanics will be such that repeat offenders will gain such large bounties that they'd become victims themselves. If they step out of line in the more stable systems, GalCop will step in, ensuring these areas remain relatively safe for the PvE players. There will be anarchic systems where PvP is the norm, almost like battle arenas. Maybe, when I scan a system before travelling there, there could be a police report indicating a level of recent crime - I can use that to avoid or embrace. If there are large numbers of griefers, a Thargoid invasion might be triggered to clense the system.
I want the relatively (got to have some level of trepidation, surely) safe trade routes that I will use for most of my playing time and I want to encounter many human players on my travels, but I also want areas in the galaxy that I fear to tread. It will be my informed choice to go there when I feel my skills/equipment are man enough and if I did, I may gain large rewards from hunting pirates, getting better commodity prices etc. or I might last 2 seconds and be mocked by teh e1337.
I fear that if there is a "switch" where I can't see other players who don't want to potentially participate in the different styles of play the game will offer, could lead to space being even more empty.
After reading some more of the comments, I was reminded of my short-lived forays in to on-line Quake, Battlefield and their ilk, where I would last about 2 seconds after spawning and be mocked by teh 1337. Repeated attempts at trying to improve always ended in ridicule. Would there be rows of little sods camped outside Lave Station waiting for me to emerge in my shiny new Cobra MK3, who would repeatedly blast seven shades out of me?
Having read all the comments, I've come full circle. I trust the game mechanics will be such that repeat offenders will gain such large bounties that they'd become victims themselves. If they step out of line in the more stable systems, GalCop will step in, ensuring these areas remain relatively safe for the PvE players. There will be anarchic systems where PvP is the norm, almost like battle arenas. Maybe, when I scan a system before travelling there, there could be a police report indicating a level of recent crime - I can use that to avoid or embrace. If there are large numbers of griefers, a Thargoid invasion might be triggered to clense the system.
I want the relatively (got to have some level of trepidation, surely) safe trade routes that I will use for most of my playing time and I want to encounter many human players on my travels, but I also want areas in the galaxy that I fear to tread. It will be my informed choice to go there when I feel my skills/equipment are man enough and if I did, I may gain large rewards from hunting pirates, getting better commodity prices etc. or I might last 2 seconds and be mocked by teh e1337.
I fear that if there is a "switch" where I can't see other players who don't want to potentially participate in the different styles of play the game will offer, could lead to space being even more empty.
I'm not sure how they would implement a no PVP switch in the "all" group.
Though I understand why some people would use it.
I see the argument about it leading to space being more empty - but then again if the functionality isn't allowed for won't it be empty anyway?
Those that are really set against PVP will surely just play in closed like minded groups or solo on/offline - wouldn't they?
Though I understand why some people would use it.
I see the argument about it leading to space being more empty - but then again if the functionality isn't allowed for won't it be empty anyway?
Those that are really set against PVP will surely just play in closed like minded groups or solo on/offline - wouldn't they?
Minti2
Deadly, But very fluffy...
You don't want us fumble fingered unskilled loser PvEers in there with you then, we certainly won't be the "best" to come up against
hehe am sure you will be better then your letting on!
I want everyone playing together in my ideal ED world, but again, understand everyone has differing personal tastes on how they want to play, believe me i use to swear i would always play solo in any games, till up to a few years ago.
Then i got hooked on a certain game with real players, and was so addicted! not just the game, but the social side to.
Perseus is actually posting perfectly in this thread, everything i like in how i want to play ED myself(think hes my twin brother!)
and again as we are both saying, its more fun against real players(the challenge, the risk)
Dont get me wrong, i know i sound blood thirsty wanting combat, but i fully want to immerse myself into other roles such as Explorer/Imperial missions as well, even mining maybe! and IF i get good enough, helping others in protection runs, or any number of other avenues.
If there are any out there intend playing solo only, please at least give PvP a little go, you might get a pleasant surprise. The camaraderie and social side alone is great fun, chatting about missions/activities. If not for you after trying, fair enough, if i find am rubbish at combat, i might go to solo myself!
Last edited:
Oh I'll be up for the full experience - though I will certainly have to get up to speed before I attempt combat (as opposed to running away as fast as my ship can carry me).
I haven't used a joystick since about 1999 and have never played online combat so my guess is I'd be pretty easy pickings fresh out of Lave!
I haven't used a joystick since about 1999 and have never played online combat so my guess is I'd be pretty easy pickings fresh out of Lave!
Minti2
Deadly, But very fluffy...
Oh I'll be up for the full experience - though I will certainly have to get up to speed before I attempt combat (as opposed to running away as fast as my ship can carry me).
I haven't used a joystick since about 1999 and have never played online combat so my guess is I'd be pretty easy pickings fresh out of Lave!
Nice!(on having ago):smilie:
Believe me, the first few months of playing ED, most will be busy getting their heads around on what's the best options to use(Joy/S or keyboard) and get good using them, unless they did alpha/beta testing(nice head start)
If you do get beaten in combat, go trade and get that bigger gun, and go out there with a Grrrrr attitude..ok maybe not the Grrrr bit!
Every experience of combat you will learn from, and pick up new tactics, and to be fair, playing against NPCs you can do the same, but its the unpredictability in real players that i like.....that first win will make you feel a good buzz.
Just to say to, i dont intend to attack every real player!............now if its Agent P from the Thargoid bar(will be every-time!!)
Last edited:
Sure, it's part of it. It's not, and it shouldn't be, all there is to it. For me, the best parts of the game were always trading, exploring and missions. Making ED a huge free for all PvP arena would mean I would have to invest a lot more time and resources in big guns than I want. This isn't some Unreal Tournament type of game where the sole purpose of playing is to blow your opponents to pieces. This is supposed to be a game with some depth, and I expect a lot more from it than just "raid n ships, buy bigger laser, raid n^2 ships, buy even bigger laser, raid n^4 ships, buy new ship and laser...". Force PvP on all players, and fighting will inevitably overshadow all other aspects of the game, as everyone will be forced to invest in firepower just to stay in business.
I don't have a problem with that: you want to be a space cowboy, you want danger, you want the thrill of being able to nuke other players into cosmic oblivion while they can do the same to you. Sure, go ahead, no one is suggesting you shouldn't have the possibility to do it.
You expressed your aversion towards the multiplayer PvE option in a civilized way and I sincerely respect that, so I hope I won't come across as harsh, but I can think of no diplomatic way of saying it: the difference between you PvP guys and people like myself and Barns is that we say "let everyone play the way they want", while you're saying "make everyone play the way WE want". No matter which way you look at it, you simply cannot justify that kind of thinking.
As far as multiplayer games are concerned, I strongly prefer cooperation over competition, but I would never dream of campaigning to have my preferred style of play forced upon others. Why do you?
Last edited:
Guys I don't want the game to be a blood soaked arena of misery and death - just some areas!
The all group should have no constraints or restrictions to behaviour. It looks like there are going to be various in-game legal systems to deal with anti-social actions. Why do you want to be in the 'all' group if you then want to restrict players abilities? Play in the private game with your friends or likeminded people and let NPC enemies give you your buzz.
I don't intend to attack other players for no reason and I don't think other players who are my age or inclination to do so either.
Trade and War is the same thing with our species - risky interactions that have winners and losers creating a diverse and dynamic culture. Elite is a fighting trading game - exactly as it says on the, er, box.
@ Wolframium. No offence taken or intended. You want me and everyone else in the 'all' group to play as we want but NOT if that means attacking another player for whatever reason. Isn't this controlling 'our' game style? Check for contradictions, friend. You seem to be trying to justify the very things you accused me of! I'll leave it at that.
The all group should have no constraints or restrictions to behaviour. It looks like there are going to be various in-game legal systems to deal with anti-social actions. Why do you want to be in the 'all' group if you then want to restrict players abilities? Play in the private game with your friends or likeminded people and let NPC enemies give you your buzz.
I don't intend to attack other players for no reason and I don't think other players who are my age or inclination to do so either.
Trade and War is the same thing with our species - risky interactions that have winners and losers creating a diverse and dynamic culture. Elite is a fighting trading game - exactly as it says on the, er, box.
@ Wolframium. No offence taken or intended. You want me and everyone else in the 'all' group to play as we want but NOT if that means attacking another player for whatever reason. Isn't this controlling 'our' game style? Check for contradictions, friend. You seem to be trying to justify the very things you accused me of! I'll leave it at that.
@ Wolframium. No offence taken or intended. You want me and everyone else in the 'all' group to play as we want but NOT if that means attacking another player for whatever reason. Isn't this controlling 'our' game style? Check for contradictions, friend. You seem to be trying to justify the very things you accused me of! I'll leave it at that.
That's not what he's saying at all.
I think every time the topic of groups comes up people want the "all" group to have the rulesets they'd like to play under, without realising one very important thing, and it's so important I'm going to make it a bit bigger and give it its own paragraph:
There is no "all" group.
At least, not as such. There is no one group which contains everyone. There may be a public group, containing all players that wish to play in the public group, along with private groups, individuals (solo players not in groups), and so on. But there is no "all" group.
What Barns and Wolframium are saying is they'd like a group with PVP disabled in there, so for example, the one public group could be split into many public groups, one with PvP disabled, one with PvP enabled, one with Ironman PvP enabled etc.
We already know Ironman has its own group, there's no reason the non-Ironman public group couldn't be split into PvE-only and PvP-enabled groups.
The argument with persistence boiled down to the same thing: people just attach the "all" label to the group they'd like to play in, and then complain when someone else has attached it to a different group. You might not realise it, but you're effectively arguing over the name of the group at this stage.
So, don't call any of them "all". One's called "PvE-only", one's called "PvP-enabled", and one's called "Ironman". Pick the group you want to play in. Nobody has to play in a mode they don't want to play.
@DigitalDuck
In my mind at the moment the "all" group referred to in the DDF archive is everyone not in a private group or with the ironman flag.
So I guess you'd better put the devs straight on their incorrect use of the "all" terminology before there is more confusion..
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4671&highlight=group
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5512
In my mind at the moment the "all" group referred to in the DDF archive is everyone not in a private group or with the ironman flag.
So I guess you'd better put the devs straight on their incorrect use of the "all" terminology before there is more confusion..
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4671&highlight=group
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5512
I hate to be pedantic but....
From the FAQ
"We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group. "
So you start in the All group and you can add restrictions (one of which I can pretty much guess will be PVP off). In open groups you can connect with everyone that has the same restrictions (or lack of restrictions in the All Group) as your open group.
I'm aware that they're currently referring to a group as the "all" group.
I'm saying that strictly speaking, it isn't. It's one of many groups, none of which contain all players.
I'm saying that creating more groups will only make it more mislabelled, and that people are keeping the "all" label on the group they'd like to play, and suggesting the creation of an alternative group they wouldn't like to play in instead, when it's actually the splitting of one group into two.
I'm saying that this argument has become about which of the many groups you stick the "all" label on.
I'm saying whichever group you stick the label on, it's wrong. So don't stick it on any of them.
(Hence the "At least, not as such." immediately following it.)
I'm saying that strictly speaking, it isn't. It's one of many groups, none of which contain all players.
I'm saying that creating more groups will only make it more mislabelled, and that people are keeping the "all" label on the group they'd like to play, and suggesting the creation of an alternative group they wouldn't like to play in instead, when it's actually the splitting of one group into two.
I'm saying that this argument has become about which of the many groups you stick the "all" label on.
I'm saying whichever group you stick the label on, it's wrong. So don't stick it on any of them.
(Hence the "At least, not as such." immediately following it.)
- Status